The Evangelical Universalist Forum

Proving The Necessary Being Exists

Theology Philosophical
#1

Every contingent being has a cause
The universe is a contingent being
Therefore, the universe has a cause

The term “cause” here means efficient cause. It is a cause of here and now being. Whatever is in potentiality to being must have a cause because the potential is not the actual. No potential can actualize itself any more that the mere potential for a rock to be a building can form it into a building. Potentialities are actualized only by actualizers. Hence, whatever exists but might not exist is caused to exist by another. We know this to be true of the universe because science tells us that it once didn’t exist and it will one day pass away. It’s not a necessary being. As long as the universe is a dependent being then it must depend on something independent. The very first cause of a contingent being can not itself be contingent because what doesn’t account for it’s own existence cannot ground the existence of another. Only a necessary being grounds the existence of contingent being.

A cause can communicate to it’s effect only what it has to communicate. The cause cannot give what it does not have to give. If my mind is received, then there must be a Mind who gave it to me. The intellectual does not arise from the non-intellectual. This is the principle of analogy. An effect resembles it’s efficient cause. Being cannot give what it hasn’t got. But what it gives it must have to give.

While the argument above is a good one I don’t think it PROVES that a Necessary Being exists. What I think we can all agree on though is that it makes a Necessary Being possible. That is, there is a possible world in which a Necessary Being exists. But since this Being exists in one possible world then it must exist in every possible world. And since the actual world is a possible world then we all must agree that this Necessary Being exists.

#2

How do we know that the universe is contingent?

Some philosophers even from the days of ancient Greece said the universe always existed. In that case, it would be “a necessary being”, would it not?

#3

If God can exist, he must exist, because God would be necessary, by definition. Therefore, the atheist has to prove that God cannot exist.

#4

Actually, the atheist not only sees no need to prove God cannot exist, but sees no way to prove that He DOES NOT exist. Nor does he see any necessity for the latter. For it seems impossible to prove the non-existence for anything. For example, how would you go about proving that the god Zeus does not exist? Or that unicorns don’t exist? Or the Phoenix bird? Or that flying saucers from another planet have never landed on earth?

The atheist sees little, if any difference between atheism and agnosticism. He doesn’t believe in God, but neither does he disbelieve.

I actually saw the agnostic/atheist Bertrand Russel being interviews on television when he was in his 90s. The interview asked him whether he thought there was any possibility that the Creator, the God of Christianity, exists. Russel replied, “Yes, I do. I would say that there is about as much probability that He exists, as there is that any of the Roman or Greek gods exist.”

#5

Here’s a post by TGB from a few years back…

If you draw a square with four quadrants, run ‘existence’ across the top (right to left) and ‘necessity/contingency’ down the side (from top to bottom). So you get four possible claims about God one of which has to be true.

Either:

(1) Necessarily, God exists (top left) [God exists and his existence is necessary]
(2) Necessarily, God does not exist (top left) [God does not exist and his non-existence is necessary]
(3) Contingently, God exists (bottom left) [God does exist and his existence is contingent]
(4) Contingently, God does not exist (bottom right) [God does not exist and his non-existence is contingent]

(3) and (4) are out of the question. The sort of being worthy of debating at all a necessary God. If God does exist but exists contingently, then he either came into existence and/or may pass out of existence. And if God exists not (contingently) then one is saying that he may come into existence (though he exists not presently). Neither of these ‘contingent’ versions of God’s existence is a viable in religious terms. The only options are (1) and (2).

One application of this says that the only atheistic version possible is (2). One has to argue that the existence of a personal deity who grounds all else that exists is strictly speaking impossible (viz., Necessarily, he doesn’t exist). But most atheists don’t attempt to make this stronger claim. But if one concedes that God’s existence is possible, one must agree that God does in fact exist. If (2), (3), and (4) are out, one is left with (1). If one agrees that (2) is false (i.e., one agrees that the existence of a necessarily existing personal deity is possible), then one must concede the actual existence of such a God. Hartshorne’s ontological existence develops along the lines of possibilty/actuality and necessity/contingency.

An atheist can object by arguing that (2) is most likely to be true—Necessarily, God does not exist (or God’s non-existence is necessary)—but that one can’t prove this. Because we’re not omniscient and cannot absolutely rule out the meaningfulness of the very concept of ‘necessary personal existence’, we have to grant it for the sake of argument. But in fact all the best arguments INCLINE us to atheism.

But what might those arguments be? Consider, atheists who conclude that (2) is true cannot do so on the basis of the incoherence of the notion of ‘necessary existence’ per se. Many (most?) will settle for the necessary existence of the material world, so they believe necessary existence is meaningful and possible. And they obviously concede the meaningfulness of ‘personal existence’. So how does one argue the IMPOSSIBILITY of conjoining necessary existence and personal existence in ‘necessary personal existence’? That’s a tall order. But it’s the only respectable atheistic option. It’s what they must argue. But so long as one admits the meaningful possibility of the existence of a necessarily existing personal being, one is bound to concede this being’s actuality as well.

#6

Perhaps of interest: “God, Gods, and Fairies” by David B. Hart.

#7

In a debate between F.C. Copleston (Jesuit priest and philosopher) and Betrand Russel (agnostic philosopher) concerning the existence of God, Copleston made the argument from contingent to necessary being. Russell responded to this argument by stating that he didn’t admit to the idea of a necessary being, and that he could not admit to any meaning in calling other beings “contingent.” He said that “necessary” to him was a useless word except as applied to analytic propositions, not to things.

#8

The question then becomes “****can ****God exist”? I don’t think it possible to answer either affirmatively or negatively. MacDonald says somewhere “not all the metaphysics in the world could prove that God exists or that he does not exist. To do such a thing, you’d have to somehow get your mind all the way around God and comprehend him.”

You’d have to be able to bolster the idea of God up, as it were, in your mind and totally encompass it to analyze it in such a way that required proof.

No one knows whether or not the being of God is “possible.” No one knows either whether or not our universe “requires” a God. Strictly speaking, we would have to be able to see a God-less vs an God-made universe to compare the two. We cannot get our comprehension around the kosmos to be able to judge it with such certainty. And, even if we could, the sort of metaphysical, fuzzy proof we would arrive at would be something like an Aristotlean first cause/prime mover, which says nothing about the afterlife or a love towards the things he (it) has made.

The problem of “proving” the existence of God should be left at this perfectly practical and reasonable conclusion: we do not know if it is possible, therefore, clarify all the ideas of him that WOULD be impossible or involve logical contradictions, purify all those by purging any ideas of moral dross or repugnance, and bathe them in the highest hopes and ideals of the human spirit. We do not know if such a being exists, but at least we know it isn’t IMPOSSIBLE or logically contradictory, and to boot, such is the only ideal worth the full striving after of the human spirit. Belief is not, and indeed cannot be, knowledge, and there is no sin or dishonor in believing something that cannot be known in principle, particularly if by believing in such there is added peviously unknown meanings of glory, hope, and beauty to the universe.

#9

That’s what I thought of, too. The syllogism is valid, but premise two is unproven.

Personally, I am skeptical that the existence of God can be philosophically proven. As I see it, the value of these kinds of “proofs” is that they bring to our attention aspects and dimensions of reality that can only be intuitively apprehended. We do not reason, for example, to the radical contingency of the universe. We experience it–or we don’t. If we do experience, we may then find ourselves asking, “Why does the universe exist?” “Why this universe rather than nothing?”

In the words of Wittgenstein: “Not how the world is, but that it is, is the mystery.”

#10

Paidion,

I answered this when I stated:

Moreover, I then went on to state:

#11

I read all of that, Michael. But I don’t think your sentence, “We know this to be true of the universe because science tells us that it once didn’t exist and it will one day pass away,” is a suffient answer to the question, “How do you know the universe is contingent?”

Science doesn’t tell us anything, and scientists make many contradicting affirmations, depending upon what theories they happen to tend to believe. Scientists once told us that the explanation for the burning of wood was the existence of a substance called “phlogiston”. The fire eventually went out when all the phlogiston had departed from the wood. With Joseph Priestly’s discovery of oxygen, the phlogiston theory was eventually dropped.

Thousands of years ago, some scientists believed the universe to have always existed. There are still some scientists today who hold to that view. But whether that view is true of false, is not known.

#12

Paidion,

One scientific argument for the premise comes from the Second Law of Thermodynamics which states that the amount of usable energy in the universe is being used up. If the universe were infinitely old, it would have used up all it’s useful energy and arrived at a temperature of absolute zero. Since there are many pockets of useful energy (example: the sun) the universe must be finite in duration. Therefore, there was a beginning when the universe’s useful energy was put into it “from” the outside"

#13

It would seem, in some people’s minds, that both matter and energy may have always existed. Matter can be converted to energy and vice versa.

Nothwithstanding, your appeal to the second law of thermodynamics reminded me of a scientific proof I once devised for supernatural creation:

Scientific Proof of Supernatural Creation

The efficacy of this proof depends upon the following three premises:

  1. The Universe is finite. (Note: “Universe” means the total of all matter and energy that exists.)

  2. The first law of thermodynamics holds, i.e. , within a closed system matter (and its equivalent, energy) cannot be created nor destroyed.

  3. The second law of thermodynamics holds, i.e., the total energy within a closed system is continuously decreasing in its level of availability. In other words, entropy is increasing within any closed system. (Or in layman’s terms, the system is “running down”).

Notes on the premises:

  1. The first premise in generally accepted within the scientific community. In fact a finite Universe is implied by the widely accepted “big bang” theory. This theory states that all matter and energy existed within a very small volume of space, smaller than a molecule of water, and since that time has been expanding, resulting in the Universe as we know it.

  2. The first and second laws of thermodynamics are considered to be the most widely‑accepted generalizations known to science.

The Proof:

  1. Since the Universe is finite, it is, itself, a closed system. Thus the first and second laws of thermodynamics apply to it.

  2. Either the Universe always existed, or else it came into being (either instantaneously or over a period of time), or it is still coming into being.

  3. The idea of the Universe always existing contradicts the third premise. For an infinite amount of time would have passed, plenty for entropy to have increased to the extent of inert uniformity. Thus the Universe did not always exist, but had a beginning, or is still coming into being.

  4. If the Universe (total of all matter and energy) had a beginning, then its matter and energy couldn’t have come into being within itself. For this would contradict premise 2. The same applies if the Universe is still coming into being.

Conclusion:

Since the Universe had a beginning, and its matter and energy could not have arisen within itself, then it must have come into it from outside itself, from outside nature itself. That which is outside nature is the Supernatural. Thus the production of matter and energy within the Universe had a Supernatural Source.

Notes: Of course, this conclusion in no way implies the characteristics of the Supernatural Source, whether personal or impersonal, and if personal, whether benign or malignant or neither.

#14

As far as what science tells us about the world, do we even know that the earth exists on a physical level? The earth could theoredically exist on a spiritual level or something else.

Also as far as the ancient debate on actuality and potentiality, it’s also possible that we are actually just potentially something and therefore, actually nothing. I don’t believe that, but I also don’t think this proves a God. We could exist totally on the level of becoming, and in a sense all we are doing is regressing back into nonbeing. In a nut shell, that is what many atheist philosophers have concluded.